Opinion
CIV 01-966 LCS/KBM
April 19, 2002
ORDER ON PENDING DISCOVERY MOTIONS
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Shirley Hitson's First Motion to Compel (Doc. 53) and the Motion to Compel Supplemental Responses filed by all defendants except Brian Yarrington (Doc. 49). The Court has reviewed the motions, the memoranda submitted by the parties and the relevant authorities.
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
In her motion to compel, Plaintiff seeks full responses and production of documents by Defendants FSB, PBI and Brent Dykstra which have been sought in her Requests for Production ("RFP") Nos. 2 and 3. In RFP-2, Plaintiff wants all credit investigations of Don White whether before or after he was hired by FSB. Having reviewed the arguments of counsel, I will order Defendants to immediately produce any such information in their possession.
As to RFP-3, Defendants have requested the opportunity to file a surreply if Plaintiff offered the requisite specificity as to Mr. Briseno's alleged violation of company policy regarding loans to relatives. Because Plaintiff has done so, I will permit Defendants to respond as to why production of those loan documents is not calculated to lead to admissible evidence in the issue of disparate treatment.
Defendants' Motion to Compel Supplementary Responses
Plaintiff objected that the First Set of Interrogatories are overbroad and burdensome, but concedes that contention interrogatories have been found appropriate at this stage of the litigation. See FED. R. CIV. P. 33(c). Consistent with my decision in Callahan v. Albuquerque TVI (CIV 97-1213 JP/KBM), I will require Plaintiffs to respond further to all of the interrogatories and state with specificity the principal and material facts upon which they rely as to each response.
Defendants also contend that Plaintiffs must fully respond to interrogatories requesting information about their physical and emotional well being. Specifically, as to each plaintiff, the interrogatory asks to "[i]dentify the name, address and telephone number of any healthcare provider, including, but not limited to, any physicians, chiropractors, mental health counselors, clinics and hospitals which have treated Plaintiff within the last ten (10) years prior to [his or her] termination from FSB." Plaintiffs argue that they have made claims only for "garden variety emotional distress" and such intrusive discovery is not calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
As to Plaintiff Hart, the request is for five years of such information.
Just this week, Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia entered an opinion with a very thorough discussion on this issue. Judge Garcia noted that
when a plaintiff seeks substantial damages for a condition, including physical, mental and emotional injury, and places that condition "at issue," an opposing party may seek discovery on the condition and its causes, as those are relevant to the party's claim or to the defendant's defenses. FED. R. CIV. P. 26. In contrast, a request for information that has no conceivable bearing on the claims or defenses will usually be disallowed. Misc. Docket Matter #1 v. Misc. Docket Matter #2, 197 F.3d 922, 925-26 (8th Cir. 1999); Garrett v. Sprint PCS, 2002 WL 181364 at *1 (D.Kan. Jan. 31, 2002). Rule 26 also vests the court with broad discretion to tailor discovery as needed. Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598, 118 S.Ct. 1584, 1597 (1998). . . .
Smith v. City of Albuqerque, CIV 01-416 BB/LFG-ACE, Doc. 112 (April 17, 2002).
Here, Plaintiffs seek damages for pain, suffering, emotional distress and discomfort. I will assume that Plaintiffs have accurately characterized these damages as "garden variety" emotional injuries that would not support an independent medical exam pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 35. Nevertheless, the requested medical records are reasonably calculated to reveal other potential stressors which may have caused or contributed to the alleged emotional injuries. See Hilt v. SFC, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182, 186 (D.Kan. 1997) (overruling objections to interrogatory asking sexual harassment plaintiff who claimed damages for mental and emotional pain to identify all physicians and health care professionals who had treated her or with whom she had consulted).
Even so, a request for five, much less ten, years worth of medical information is overly broad and burdensome. Instead, I will require Plaintiffs Hitson and Wood to respond to Interrogatory 17 and Plaintiff Hart to respond to Interrogatory 15 only as to health providers who have provided treatment within the last three (3) years prior to their termination from FSB. See e.g., Garrett v. Sprint PCS, 2002 WL 181364, *2 (D.Kan. January 31, 2002).
Wherefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Plaintiff Shirley Hitson's First Motion to Compel (Doc. 53) is GRANTED IN PART. Defendants shall respond to RFP-2 by immediately producing to Plaintiffs' counsel any and all credit investigations of Don White in their possession. Also, no later than April 29, 2002, Defendants shall file a surreply on the remaining issues which are hereby taken under advisement.
2. The Motion to Compel Supplemental Responses filed by all defendants except Brian Yarrington (Doc. 49) is GRANTED IN PART. By May 6, 2002, Plaintiffs shall respond further to all of the interrogatories in the First Set and state with specificity the principal and material facts upon which they rely as to each response. Each of the plaintiffs shall respond to the interrogatories seeking medical provider information but only as to health providers who have provided treatment within the last three (3) years prior to the plaintiff's termination from FSB. IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, THE MOTION IS DENIED.